The Rich Love High Unemployment

[editec]

The guy who owns the grocery store in the town where the major factory went OUT OF BUSINESS does not like high unemployment.

BUT....

The factory owner down the street who might hire labor cheaper as a result of the same event might like HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT very much.

Of course, in the aggregate, when employment is low, it is a EMPLOYERS' MARKET, that is certainly true...statistically.

 

[teapartysamurai]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

For 18 months between mid-2009 and the end of 2010 output per hour rose 5.2%

This came from squeezing more productivity from workers; however, most of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits and not to the workers responsible for the increased output.

"Hourly wages adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3% according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers.

"That compares to 58% since records began in 1947."

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

Apparently bad economic news produces the low interest rates that make stocks look better than their fixed income alternatives.

It's not called class WAR for nothing,

Oh get this!

The rich want a bad economy because it produces lower taxes!

Yeah, you weren't around in the 70s were you?

 

[teapartysamurai]

"The unemployment crisis has been a godsend for America's superrich, who own the vast majority of financial assets - stocks, bonds, currency and commodities...

"America's labor market depression propels asset price appreciation. In the last two years, US corporate profits and share prices rose at the fastest pace in history - and the fastest in the G-7.

"Considering the source of profits, the soaring stock market appears less a beacon of prosperity than a reliable proxy for America's new misery index. Mark Whitehouse of The Wall Street Journal describes Obama's hamster wheel recovery:

"'From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers.

"'But the lion's share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises.

"'Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.'"

"Out of work Americans deserve more than unemployment checks - they deserve dividends.

"The rich would never have recovered without them."

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

Yep, there is nothing rich business owners love more than not having employees to man their companies nor consumers who can purchase their products.

Jesus where are you morons coming from?

The Obama voters rolls!

 

[georgephillip]

Stop sleeping.
Clean your own house.
Slacker.
($20/hour seems reasonable to me)

Most house cleaning people make at least that much. Some, who run their own cleaning businesses, make much more.

If you have enough money, why should you waste your time cleaning your house? If you make $200/hr, why would you waste your valuable time doing something you could pay someone to do for 1/10th the price?

Every time you post, you prove you're an idiot as an economist.

Most of the janitorial jobs I've held paid closer to minimum wage, but thanks for sharing.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No, the rich dont like high unemployment. They like dirt cheap labor. Something for nothing.

The rich want the rest of us fighting for jobs at McDonalds.

The more applicants for each job the less in wages and benefits they have to pay.

Get ready for a repeal of minimum wage.

Anybody want to work 8 hours for one $20 bill(no taxes!)

There should be a repeal of minimum wage.

The only reason minimum wage was ever put into being is at the behest of unions.

It keeps low skilled people from getting jobs, because they are not worth the minimum wage to train them.

Thus "skilled people" (unions) can demand far higher wages because they deserve far more than "minimum wage."

If Obama would stop screwing up the economy it would not matter. The base wage (here in Ohio) was two dollars OVER minimum wage during the last decade because we were at "full employment" and employers had to raise wages to attract new workers.

The reasons wages are going down IS BECAUSE OF OBAMA, not the rich.

The market will support a higher wage IF YOU IMPROVE THE ECONOMY which Obama is not doing.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Stop sleeping.
Clean your own house.
Slacker.
($20/hour seems reasonable to me)

Most house cleaning people make at least that much. Some, who run their own cleaning businesses, make much more.

If you have enough money, why should you waste your time cleaning your house? If you make $200/hr, why would you waste your valuable time doing something you could pay someone to do for 1/10th the price?

Every time you post, you prove you're an idiot as an economist.

Most of the janitorial jobs I've held paid closer to minimum wage, but thanks for sharing.

Well maybe if you would push that broom more, and get off the internet, you wouldn't be whining about having no money.

 

[midcan5]

I'm not sure businesses love it, but this is a fact of the modern industrial world, low unemployment shifts the power to the worker. During the Internet boom headhunters were calling many in my field weekly, many went where the money was. It was an odd situation with millennium work and the I-bubble. Another negative consequence of this situation is the shift to countries where wages are lower and workers are more easily replaced.

[$$] darn they charge for this now. See the book noted below as well, these changes raise complex issues.

This is an interesting piece even if a bit OT. Offshoring: The Next Industrial Revolution? | Foreign Affairs


Chapter VII - Offshoring as an Ethical Issue
Contemporary Issues in Ethics and Information Technology by Robert A. Schultz

'Overview'

"Removal of jobs from one country to another to exploit lower paid workers tends to raise objections from those whose jobs are removed. However, historically, such jobs have tended to be low-wage, low-skill jobs, and the people holding them have typically not been able to mount effective resistance. Recently, highly skilled, highly paid IT jobs have begun to be exported from the United States, and although some of the questions raised are the same as for the earlier low-wage jobs, there are some different considerations."

Why this would cost $89 is beyond my comprehension. [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Issues-Ethics-Information-Technology/dp/1591407796/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8[/ame]

 

[georgephillip]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

You nailed it!

This is the "logic" of the Obama left!

It's not Obama's fault that there is high unemployment! Nooooooooooooo!

It's an eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil cabal of "rich people" who like high unemployment because . . . . well, they just do!

Hilarious!

Can you connect the dots between how America's labor market depression propels asset price appreciation?

"In the last two years, US corporate profits and share prices rose at the fastest pace in history - and the fastest in the G-7.

"Considering the source of profits, the soaring stock market appears less a beacon of prosperity than a reliable proxy for America's new misery index. Mark Whitehouse of The Wall Street Journal describes Obama's hamster wheel recovery:

"'From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers.

"'But the lion's share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises.

"'Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.'"

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

 

[georgephillip]

The guy who owns the grocery store in the town where the major factory went OUT OF BUSINESS does not like high unemployment.

BUT....

The factory owner down the street who might hire labor cheaper as a result of the same event might like HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT very much.

Of course, in the aggregate, when employment is low, it is a EMPLOYERS' MARKET, that is certainly true...statistically.

"From 1980 to 2005 the economy grew by more than 120 percent.

"Productivity, the amount of goods and services produced in an average hour of work, rose by almost 70 percent. Yet the wage for a typical worker changed little over this period, after adjusting for inflation.

"Furthermore, workers had far less security at the end of this period than the beginning, as access to health insurance and pension coverage dwindled, and layoffs and downsizing became standard practices.

"In short, most workers saw few gains from a quarter century of economic growth."

And now the REALLY FUN part starts.

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[teapartysamurai]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

You nailed it!

This is the "logic" of the Obama left!

It's not Obama's fault that there is high unemployment! Nooooooooooooo!

It's an eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil cabal of "rich people" who like high unemployment because . . . . well, they just do!

Hilarious!

Can you connect the dots between how America's labor market depression propels asset price appreciation?

"In the last two years, US corporate profits and share prices rose at the fastest pace in history - and the fastest in the G-7.

"Considering the source of profits, the soaring stock market appears less a beacon of prosperity than a reliable proxy for America's new misery index. Mark Whitehouse of The Wall Street Journal describes Obama's hamster wheel recovery:

"'From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers.

"'But the lion's share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises.

"'Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.'"

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

Yes, yes, workers of the world unite.

Those shareholder are people like YOU and me who risk sometimes their life savings on a company and you idiots act like they should get nothing.

No the "workers" should get it.

As I pointed out before. When an economy is good, wages go up to attract workers.

The economy is BAD and you are surprised that wages are down, but companies are desperately trying to keep their investors happy???????

You lefties have to be the biggest IDIOTS!

You have no clue how business works, and yet you always run around screaming there is some kind of "injustice" going on.

Like GM where Obama told the shareholders they invested in the company for nothing, and basically gave the company to the unions.

That is you lefties idea of "justice."

 

[georgephillip]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

For 18 months between mid-2009 and the end of 2010 output per hour rose 5.2%

This came from squeezing more productivity from workers; however, most of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits and not to the workers responsible for the increased output.

"Hourly wages adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3% according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers.

"That compares to 58% since records began in 1947."

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

Apparently bad economic news produces the low interest rates that make stocks look better than their fixed income alternatives.

It's not called class WAR for nothing,

Oh get this!

The rich want a bad economy because it produces lower taxes!

Yeah, you weren't around in the 70s were you?

I remember high interest rates in the 70s.
I'm a little fuzzy on '70s tax rates.

Today, the rich have discovered how to increase their wealth regardless of whether the economy is "good" or "bad" for everyone else.

Why are you instinctively on their side?

 

[teapartysamurai]

For 18 months between mid-2009 and the end of 2010 output per hour rose 5.2%

This came from squeezing more productivity from workers; however, most of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits and not to the workers responsible for the increased output.

"Hourly wages adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3% according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers.

"That compares to 58% since records began in 1947."

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

Apparently bad economic news produces the low interest rates that make stocks look better than their fixed income alternatives.

It's not called class WAR for nothing,

Oh get this!

The rich want a bad economy because it produces lower taxes!

Yeah, you weren't around in the 70s were you?

I remember high interest rates in the 70s.
I'm a little fuzzy on '70s tax rates.

Today, the rich have discovered how to increase their wealth regardless of whether the economy is "good" or "bad" for everyone else.

Why are you instinctively on their side?

I am "instinctively" on the side of the free market.

Not you tax and grab lefties who think the answer to everything is confiscatory tax rates, and a nanny state planned economy.

It never works, and the people who get hurt the worst ARE THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS LIKE ME!

Of course the rich figure out a way to survive regardless what bozo is in the Whitehouse.

DO YOU BLAME THEM?

Hell, if I had the dough, I would too, AND SO WOULD YOU!

Don't tell me otherwise. Noam Chomsky is the biggest communist out there and he puts his money in all kinds of tax shelters.

It's not the rich that get hurt with your schemes, IT'S PEOPLE LIKE ME!

That's who I'm "instinctively' defending!

 

[Bern80]

The notion that the business owners are all about cheap labor is asinine. If it were true, there would be far FEWER jobs in the U.S. What business owners are concerned with is productivity. THAT is where the bottom line is. If overseas labor costs $5 hour and produces $10 worth of goods in that hour and a an American worker costs $10 an hour and produces $20 worth of goods, who is the business owner going to hire?

Capitalism is all about profits.

"In the boardrooms of corporate America, profits aren't everything - they are the only thing. A JPMorgan research report concludes that the current corporate profit recovery is more dependent on falling unit-labor costs than during any previous expansion.

"At some level, corporate executives are aware that they are lowering workers' living standards, but their decisions are neither coordinated nor intentionally harmful.

"Call it the 'paradox of profitability.'

"Executives are acting in their own and their shareholders' best interest: maximizing profit margins in the face of weak demand by extensive layoffs and pay cuts.

"But what has been good for every company's income statement has been a disaster for working families and their communities."

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

This is a response to the above how exactley? The only paradox here is that somehow business owners like people not being able to purchase their products. Quote him all you want. Your source is full of it.

 

[Sallow]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

Depends on the industry.

But in a nutshell..the highest cost to most industries..is labor.

 

[teapartysamurai]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

Depends on the industry.

But in a nutshell..the highest cost to most industries..is labor.

EXACTLY!

So what do those industries do when hit with higher taxes?

Either move overseas or cut LABOR.

 

[Sallow]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

Depends on the industry.

But in a nutshell..the highest cost to most industries..is labor.

EXACTLY!

So what do those industries do when hit with higher taxes?

Either move overseas or cut LABOR.

Well..you'd be right if that were true. But you ignore the bigger pictures. Companies are moving overseas..because they can get away with it. They have access to US services, provided to them by the US taxpayer..while hiring overseas. By the way..the tax liability for most big US corporations has been very low over the decade or so. In fact..many of them are getting money BACK.

 

[editec]

The honest wealthy get even wealthier serving a vibrant well paid middle class.

That is one of the reasons that the American Capital class got so wealthy to begin with. They served customers who had money to buy their goods.

But certainly we can all point to policies that served SOME WEALTHY (certainly not the entire capitalist class) that tend to have made the US middle class (adn the nation as a whole) less affluent.

My point here is that there are good people serving to benefit this nation in ALL classes of society.

And there are villians and swindlers in every class, too.

 

[georgephillip]

So the rich people like high unemployment because somehow they profit off no one being able to buy their services or products?

Depends on the industry.

But in a nutshell..the highest cost to most industries..is labor.

Do you think that's why chattel slavery was institutionalized?

 

[xsited1]

The Rich Love High Unemployment

Another article slamming the Obama Administration. Buyers remorse is at an all-time high.

If the Republicans had a dog that could hunt, Barry's one and done.

The Republicans can't be counted on for anything these days. Obama has been a total screw-up and yet there's still a good chance that he might win in 2012. It reminds me of the 2004 election when all the Democrats had was John Kerry.

 

[georgephillip]

The notion that the business owners are all about cheap labor is asinine. If it were true, there would be far FEWER jobs in the U.S. What business owners are concerned with is productivity. THAT is where the bottom line is. If overseas labor costs $5 hour and produces $10 worth of goods in that hour and a an American worker costs $10 an hour and produces $20 worth of goods, who is the business owner going to hire?

Capitalism is all about profits.

"In the boardrooms of corporate America, profits aren't everything - they are the only thing. A JPMorgan research report concludes that the current corporate profit recovery is more dependent on falling unit-labor costs than during any previous expansion.

"At some level, corporate executives are aware that they are lowering workers' living standards, but their decisions are neither coordinated nor intentionally harmful.

"Call it the 'paradox of profitability.'

"Executives are acting in their own and their shareholders' best interest: maximizing profit margins in the face of weak demand by extensive layoffs and pay cuts.

"But what has been good for every company's income statement has been a disaster for working families and their communities."

Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout

This is a response to the above how exactley? The only paradox here is that somehow business owners like people not being able to purchase their products. Quote him all you want. Your source is full of it.

My source isn't claiming business owners like it when customers are unable to purchase their products.
You are.

As I understand it, our current corporate profit recovery is not based on increased demand as much as falling unit-labor costs.

The JP Morgan link brings price/earnings into the explanation:

"In addition to the traditional (and much discredited) argument of quadrillions of cash on the sidelines (which conveniently ignores the quintillions of debt also on the sidelines), the other last remaining point that bullish pundit like to point out is that the PE on the S&P is oh so very low compared to historical level.

"Putting aside the fact that the last 30 years of economic data have been perverted by a cost of credit which has declined from 15% all the way to zero, and with no additional place to go, and as such any historical comparisons are now moot as the Fed is pretty much out of options (aside from monetizing of course, and outright debasing the dollar), the primary reason why investors continue to put little credit in the 'miraculous' corporate profits explosion, and thus give companies subpar P/E, is that the entire profit recovery has been predicated not on GDP growth (which explains the constant skittishness about macro events), but on declining labor costs, and as the following JPM report points out, 'the latest profit recovery (the three red dots) is reliant on declining labor costs like none before it.'"

A Profit "Recovery" Driven By Plunging Labor Costs Explains Why PE Multiples Will Remain Depressed | zero hedge